[BlutoSays]

NANCY PELOSI: "When I hear people talk about inflation...we have to change that subject!"

[BlutoSays]

The View Co-Host Joy Behar Claims Crime Is “Going Down” Under Biden
November 2, 2022 | Zerohedge

Does gaslighting still represent an effective debate strategy in 2022, or does the public understand how the tactic works? We're about to find out this month as the midterm elections approach, but for now the political left has decided that instead of addressing the numerous problems that have arisen nationwide on their watch, they would rather pretend that those problems don't exist and anyone that says they do is a liar.

The View's Joy Behar is leaping into action to save Democrats, arguing that the nationwide spike in crime is not real and that the numbers have been inflated by the Republican party. Behar once again tried to distract from the main issue by mentioning the Jan 6th riot and suggests that protesters “tried to kill the vice president,” even though there was not a single death at the event attributed to the protesters. She then states that crime has actually gone down under Joe Biden.

“Republicans now, coming up to the next election all they do is talk about crime, crime, crime...I looked it up, murders in major cities have fallen by 4% so far in 2022, compared with the same period a year ago. So crime is not on the rise, it’s actually going down under Joe Biden.”



Behar does not cite the specific source for this optimistic data, nor does she outline the context. Though, one can already see a highly dishonest spin on display in her comments.

For example, she seeks to conflate all crime with a single stat – Murder rates in major cities. Americans are not only concerned with one type of crime, they are concerned with an increase in all types of crime. According to data from Axios, overall violent crime rates are actually up 4.2% from January to June of this year.

While homicides rates did fall 2.4%, Behar should have taken into consideration the fact that they skyrocketed from 2020 through 2021, in almost exact parallel with the BLM riots and the covid lockdowns. The drop in 2022 does not erase the gains from the past two years.

This is much like Joe Biden making the claim that gas prices went down on his watch. Prices actually doubled on his watch, and then fell slightly the past few months as he continues to dump oil from the US strategic reserves onto the market. When it comes to statistics, everything is about context.

The downfall of the gaslighting methodology is that it is usually only effective against individuals, not an entire population. You can't tell millions of people that they are not suffering from increased crime while they deal with the effects on a daily basis. They're going to call you out for lying, and they certainly aren't going to vote for your candidates at election time. The frog in the pot strategy doesn't work when the water is already boiling.

Even CNN, citing a poll from Gallup, recently admitted that Americans are more worried about crime today than at any other time this century. And the majority of areas facing rising crime are in large cities controlled by Democrat politicians.

Separating the Dems from the spike in US crime is truly an impossible task after years of blind support for the BLM/Antifa riots and calls for defunding the police. Behar's misrepresentation of the statistics underscores a long running trend of political leftists ignoring inconvenient truths, from rising crime, to rising inflation, to rising public discontent over extreme social policies. Pretending as if all is well is no longer an option.

Attribution: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/vie ... nder-biden

[Pants-of-dog]

@BlutoSays

I find it amusing that you mindlessly copy and paste articles and videos from your echo chamber in a thread about groupthink.

[BlutoSays]

@BlutoSays

I find it amusing that you mindlessly copy and paste articles and videos from your echo chamber in a thread about groupthink.

I find it amusing that as transcripts and videos are released of leftists and their water carriers, you can no longer refute/rationalize the insanity of progressive idiocy.

[Pants-of-dog]

I find it amusing that as transcripts and videos are released of leftists and their water carriers, you can no longer refute/rationalize the insanity of progressive idiocy.

If you can make a clear argument, I will gladly address it.

I asked for clarification of your argument from the OP and you ignored it.

Would you care to clarify it now?

[late]

I find it amusing that as transcripts and videos are released of leftists and their water carriers, you can no longer refute/rationalize the insanity

of progressive idiocy.

You're a sad joke. I counter your nonsense with facts for forum members that might be sitting on the fence. Other than that...

Most Dems are not Lefties or Progressive. They have passed Progressive legislation, but most of the time they try to avoid it.

And the insanity, is all yours. Radicals trying to tear down the government, and burn the country with violence... that's all yours, sweetie.

[BlutoSays]

If you can make a clear argument, I will gladly address it.

I asked for clarification of your argument from the OP and you ignored it.

Would you care to clarify it now?

The article speaks for itself. If you seek clarification, that's your problem.

[BlutoSays]

You're a sad joke. I counter your nonsense with facts for forum members that might be sitting on the fence. Other than that...

Most Dems are not Lefties or Progressive. They have passed Progressive legislation, but most of the time they try to avoid it.

And the insanity, is all yours. Radicals trying to tear down the government, and burn the country with violence... that's all yours, sweetie.

[Pants-of-dog]

The article speaks for itself. If you seek clarification, that's your problem.

Apparently, you can not even read and parse the argument.

As far as I can tell, the author of your article incorrectly believes that the pharmaceutical executive lied, when in reality, he merely pointed out that the lab tests were about infection and survival, not transmission.

Is that the error made by the author of the article you copied and pasted?

[late]

Darrell Brooks

Your inability to think is duly noted.

[QatzelOk]

So your whole orthodox social determinism line sounds [1] outdated, and [2] more robotic than anything Elon Musk has ever said.

This is a cute put-down, but it's in now way accurate or useful.

See, what I described above (the dynamics of group interaction) is NOT some theoretical construct or political ideology. It's simply my observation of all group interaction throughout my life, coupled with some of the sociology that I have read in my many years of post-secondary education.

There is no "political theory" in these words.

I simply stated - matter of factly - that there is no THINKING in group think. That it is all reactions to power relations and hidden agendas.

Let me give you a concrete example of this from my life:

I was teaching ESL to corporate lawyers (and legal assistants) for a few years, and one year, I had an intermediate level discussion group in a brand new highrise tower downtown.

In this group, there was on student who was much weakier than the other students, and yet, she always dominated the conversation, and the other students let her do this.

She actually brought down the level of grammar to a level that was useless to the other people in the class. And yet, they let her talk, and talk, and talk. The other students opened their eyes really wide when she spoke... as if they were listening to the Gods speak to them in a magical tongue.

Turns out, she was a corporate lawyer with mafia connections. So everyone let her ruin the class.

Group think = this kind of thing

[ckaihatsu]

I'm not talking about biology at all. I'm talking about the lazy way we use words to mean more than one thing. We do this in English more than in French, by the way. French is much more careful in using different expressions to describe different things.

"We think" has nothing to do with the thinking process. "We think" describes the way power politics and group sociology lead to group decisions. But this isn't through "thinking as a group."

For example, if a billionaire "joins the discussion" in a boardroom, *whatever he says* is likely to be what everyone suddenly "thinks."

This is NOT the same as "I was thinking about how to improve life..." or "I was trying to imagine life after death."

Group thinking is more about saying and doing what you must say and do... in order to survive contrived human interactions.

You are often discouraged from really thinking in these group decision-making encounters. And with all the noise, distraction, and power politics at play, whatever thoughts the individual has... are likely to be short-circuited by the immediate needs of the group dynamic.

---

This is a cute put-down, but it's in now way accurate or useful.

See, what I described above (the dynamics of group interaction) is NOT some theoretical construct or political ideology. It's simply my observation of all group interaction throughout my life, coupled with some of the sociology that I have read in my many years of post-secondary education.

There is no "political theory" in these words.

I simply stated - matter of factly - that there is no THINKING in group think. That it is all reactions to power relations and hidden agendas.

Let me give you a concrete example of this from my life:

I was teaching ESL to corporate lawyers (and legal assistants) for a few years, and one year, I had an intermediate level discussion group in a brand new highrise tower downtown.

In this group, there was on student who was much weakier than the other students, and yet, she always dominated the conversation, and the other students let her do this.

She actually brought down the level of grammar to a level that was useless to the other people in the class. And yet, they let her talk, and talk, and talk. The other students opened their eyes really wide when she spoke... as if they were listening to the Gods speak to them in a magical tongue.

Turns out, she was a corporate lawyer with mafia connections. So everyone let her ruin the class.

Group think = this kind of thing

Of course I *understand* what you're saying, Qatzel, and the example *does* help, but there's a word that sums up this dynamic you're describing, even *better* than 'groupthink', which is 'power' -- and I don't have to tell *you*, just saying.

Maybe also try 'culture', 'the private sector', 'institutional / industry practice', for your vignette.

What you were *implying*, though, whether you realized it or not, is that this particular corporate-industry 'groupthink', or culture, is the hegemonic social status-quo. Does the example *typify* the entire worldwide bourgeois corporate culture as it currently exists, or was it the *rarest* of occurrences and meant to be noted for its exceptionality?

There's simply no way to *tell*, from just any vignette or isolated incident -- if that's what it was.

[ckaihatsu]

Generalizations-Characterizations

Spoiler: show

[QatzelOk]

...there's a word that sums up this dynamic you're describing, even *better* than 'groupthink', which is 'power' -- and I don't have to tell *you*, just saying.

Yes, but what I was highlighting was how we abuse words like "think" in English, to mean something that is NOT thinking.

This is important, because many life-affecting decisions are made through group "thinking," which is not thinking at all. Just reacting to power, status, personal preservation, and manipulative narratives.

...this particular corporate-industry 'groupthink', or culture, is the hegemonic social status-quo. Does the example *typify* the entire worldwide bourgeois corporate culture as it currently exists, or was it the *rarest* of occurrences and meant to be noted for its exceptionality?

Yes, it is. In a competitive society, people express things that "get them ahead in life," which means, "allows them to buy a more expensive SUV."

They call this "thinking" only so that people think that they are smart, and that their smartness is useful at their jobs.

.

[ckaihatsu]

Yes, but what I was highlighting was how we

It's not really a generic-'we' thing, though -- you're indicating that there are certain powers-that-be who have disproportionate influence and 'say' over how things happen.

abuse words like "think" in English, to mean something that is NOT thinking.

This is important, because many life-affecting decisions are made through group "thinking," which is not thinking at all. Just reacting to power, status, personal preservation, and manipulative narratives.

Yeah, that could roughly be called 'tribalism', the point being that today's global society doesn't really *run* on tribalism, so maybe reconsider-where-you-are, or something.

That said you can't really blame people for living their lives and not-being political 24/7/365.


G.U.T.S.U.C., Individualism - Tribalism

Spoiler: show

universal context

Spoiler: show

---

Yes, it is. In a competitive society, people express things that "get them ahead in life," which means, "allows them to buy a more expensive SUV."

They call this "thinking" only so that people think that they are smart, and that their smartness is useful at their jobs.

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of ... elligences

[QatzelOk]

It's not really a generic-'we' thing, though -- you're indicating that there are certain powers-that-be who have disproportionate influence and 'say' over how things happen.

And that the end result of this top-down tyranny is called .... "thinking."

today's global society doesn't really *run* on tribalism

It's too bad Marshal Mcluhan is gone, or you could tell him that - in your opinion - "the global village" isn't a village at all.

However, when I look at the end credits after most media products, I tend to agree with Mcluhan. Always the same village gatekeepers. Even for the soundtrack and makeup are left to the high-status village elites and their families.

In a village setting, the town criers are only yelling information that is important to the people paying them (the group think hegemons or gatekeepers of media).

When one comes to a conclusion after "watching mass media," one has been forced to "think" a certain way, just like when one attends a meeting with corporate lawyers with mafia connections.

[ckaihatsu]

And that the end result of this top-down tyranny is called .... "thinking."

Well, that's kind of *mechanical* for my *own* tastes -- I'd call it 'being-mindfucked', like a domesticated horse, but whatever. It's more of a Truman-Show-like phenomenon, not in the sense of conspiracy but rather in the sense of micro-individual-to-macro-society, or 'worldview'.


Worldview Diagram

Spoiler: show

[6] Worldview Diagram

Spoiler: show

---

It's too bad Marshal Mcluhan is gone, or you could tell him that - in your opinion - "the global village" isn't a village at all.

Yeah, don't get me *started* -- to me he's the voice of his generation, unfortunately.

However, when I look at the end credits after most media products, I tend to agree with Mcluhan. Always the same village gatekeepers. Even for the soundtrack and makeup are left to the high-status village elites and their families.

His thing was TV, in my estimation, and he did it to a fault. At least he's pointing out how *insular* TV production was then during the 'studio system' -- it resembled a medieval *guild*.

In a village setting, the town criers are only yelling information that is important to the people paying them (the group think hegemons or gatekeepers of media).

When one comes to a conclusion after "watching mass media," one has been forced to "think" a certain way, just like when one attends a meeting with corporate lawyers with mafia connections.

I'll beg to disagree -- since I've been actively *addressing* that question of the-way-to-outside-of-the-fishbowl, through my diagrams. The point has been to *find* the finite-ness of the (social) world, so that *all* conceivable examples are realistically *contextualized*, 'universally', regularly with all possible others.


History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show

I think just the *three-word* framework of 'politics - logistics - lifestyle' is quite powerful and compelling in itself -- which I developed -- again for that desirable 'universality' of application.

( In practice, you may want to try out this hands-on Linux script, geared to absolute beginners: )


database-type functionality

A Few Tools for Your Computer [March 16, 2022]

viewtopic.php?p=15218131#p15218131

[ckaihatsu]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity

[ckaihatsu]

inductive vs. deductive reasoning

Spoiler: show

[QatzelOk]

I've been actively *addressing* that question of the-way-to-outside-of-the-fishbowl, through my diagrams.

Not many legacy media viewers have access to your healing diagrams. So while you claim they are an effective cure for media manipulation of the masses (the coerced groupthink that is generated by the gatekeepers of our societal cave), they are a cure that is sitting on a high shelf at the back of a hidden laboratory in an out-of-the-way town.

graph, graph, graph

While your taxonomies are sometimes useful in determining the direction of the coversation, I find that they also detract from the ideation that is required to look at issues "from another angle."

The problem wish so many societal issue discussions is... that legacy media (the fishbowl) has left its mark on most of us, and this has the effect of framing issues in ways that benefit hegemony.

One way that you (accidentally?) cloud issues is by providing visual charts that seem to want to force a particular "framing" on each subject you discuss.

This role of "framing the limits of discussion" is a legacy media trick. It's a means of chaining heads in a particular position so that they can only watch the shadows....